Regulators: Removing useful information for what benefit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under Class C
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulators: Removing useful information for what benefit
So in the past two months or so I have seen two examples now of removing useful operational information for NO benefit at all of the flying community, so one wonders, is this just to cover the regulators arse for some perceived liability?
Exhibit A: Removal of OnTrack by CASA. I have used this several times during flight training for gaining an appreciation of entry procedures to Class D aerodromes. It was announced CASA were removing this resource as they were struggling to keep it up-to-date, potentially having out of date information in it. So I read that as, if it is wrong, CASA are liable, so instead of committing resources to maintaining a very valuable service, just remove it altogether. Think about it, the resource called out runway incursion or apron incursion hotspots, proper arrival or departure points and techniques, unique hazards etc. How can anyone justifying removing this. Simple solution, fund a way to quickly put a note on it flagging out of date areas being worked on, but leave the rest.
Exhibit B: Today's AIC announcing changes to NAIPS briefings. No longer with the GAF and GPWT be included directly in the briefing, you now need to click a hyperlink to view those charts separate. So we have gone from getting a briefing, printing it in full with ALL useful information, and taking it to the field with you to study. Now if I forget to click one of the links to get the separate charts, and don't have Internet at the field, I have lost a critical part of the briefing? The only well done in the AIC was adding the ability to get the Aus wide GPWT in the briefing, not just region.
What is going on. I can only think the cover your arse mentality that has affected so much of the medical and licensing areas has now infected the practical provision of information to pilots. Not just CASA, but now AirServices.
Icing on the cake was my trying to send them an email to the email address given in the AIC to provide some feedback, for their server to reject the email address as invalid... sigh
This really is a race to the bottom.
Exhibit A: Removal of OnTrack by CASA. I have used this several times during flight training for gaining an appreciation of entry procedures to Class D aerodromes. It was announced CASA were removing this resource as they were struggling to keep it up-to-date, potentially having out of date information in it. So I read that as, if it is wrong, CASA are liable, so instead of committing resources to maintaining a very valuable service, just remove it altogether. Think about it, the resource called out runway incursion or apron incursion hotspots, proper arrival or departure points and techniques, unique hazards etc. How can anyone justifying removing this. Simple solution, fund a way to quickly put a note on it flagging out of date areas being worked on, but leave the rest.
Exhibit B: Today's AIC announcing changes to NAIPS briefings. No longer with the GAF and GPWT be included directly in the briefing, you now need to click a hyperlink to view those charts separate. So we have gone from getting a briefing, printing it in full with ALL useful information, and taking it to the field with you to study. Now if I forget to click one of the links to get the separate charts, and don't have Internet at the field, I have lost a critical part of the briefing? The only well done in the AIC was adding the ability to get the Aus wide GPWT in the briefing, not just region.
What is going on. I can only think the cover your arse mentality that has affected so much of the medical and licensing areas has now infected the practical provision of information to pilots. Not just CASA, but now AirServices.
Icing on the cake was my trying to send them an email to the email address given in the AIC to provide some feedback, for their server to reject the email address as invalid... sigh
This really is a race to the bottom.
You’d be forgiven for not knowing that CASA’s functions include “comprehensive safety education and training programs”. There are sporadic efforts to rejuvenate and maintain various things like OnTrack and VFG, but so much relies on the youthful exuberance of individuals who do not have enough hours in the day to do the work necessary to maintain these things. Of course, the volume of changes that are necessary to keep these things accurate is a manifestation of a broader, chronic problem.
Air Services is not there to provide services to you. (Coincidentally, I have been unable to log in to NIS for the last few hours. Anyone else having the same problem?)
Air Services is not there to provide services to you. (Coincidentally, I have been unable to log in to NIS for the last few hours. Anyone else having the same problem?)
Individuals pilots are obliged to extract the latest information from the primary materials i.e. AIP. Most pilots are not flying into every GAAP - whoops, whatever they are called these days - or around or across every capital city airport in Class C every day. So it shouldn’t be that hard for an individual pilot to ascertain the current information for a flight from A to B (and, indeed the individual pilot should be able to do so). (I assume the CASA guidance material will be out of date or inaccurate anyway, so just use primary materials as a matter of course.)
However, you take the same pilot and give them the responsibility for keeping all OnTrack materials up to date in real time and s/he will die trying.
However, you take the same pilot and give them the responsibility for keeping all OnTrack materials up to date in real time and s/he will die trying.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 23rd Jul 2019 at 04:08.
(Looks like NIS is back on line. One wonders how a NOTAM about the non-availability of NIS is promulgated, if NIS isn’t working....)
No Visual Pilot Guides AND no On-track?
So we are to rely on ERSA are we?
Having worked extensively on both, I'm upset and mad at this reduction in Safety to the GA community.
So we are to rely on ERSA are we?
Having worked extensively on both, I'm upset and mad at this reduction in Safety to the GA community.
Have a look at the bottom of this thread:
Visual Pilots guide Melbourne/Moorabbin
I found the OnTrack video for Moorabbin to be VERY misleading.
I hope that this is the only inaccuracy but I fear that it was not.
Visual Pilots guide Melbourne/Moorabbin
I found the OnTrack video for Moorabbin to be VERY misleading.
I hope that this is the only inaccuracy but I fear that it was not.
It’s probably not that, roundsounds. It’s probably that there is insufficient corporate competence to understand the level of resources and expertise necessary - with the attendant cost - to keep educational material up to date.
The recent stuff up with the recommended altitudes for ops in the vicinity of Moorabbin / Station Pier is a manifestation of many ‘disconnects’ that are, in turn, a manifestation of fundamental degradation in the corporate competence of CASA and Airservices.
The recent stuff up with the recommended altitudes for ops in the vicinity of Moorabbin / Station Pier is a manifestation of many ‘disconnects’ that are, in turn, a manifestation of fundamental degradation in the corporate competence of CASA and Airservices.
CASA gave the same weak reason for getting rid of an index for the AIP, too hard to keep up to date. Also don’t have an index for the ERSA. Both would be much, much easier to navigate with a comprehensive index.
They are obviously focusing on more important things https://www.casa.gov.au/news-article...tual-assistant
Off the topic a wee bit, anyone know when Parts 91 and 135 are going to hit the tarmac. CASA have been very quiet this year with regards to the progress on the implementation of these regs and others.
Also noted that CASA done a mass recruiting drive earlier this year, anyone in the know, know if was a great success?
Off the topic a wee bit, anyone know when Parts 91 and 135 are going to hit the tarmac. CASA have been very quiet this year with regards to the progress on the implementation of these regs and others.
Also noted that CASA done a mass recruiting drive earlier this year, anyone in the know, know if was a great success?
My prediction is that the 91 and 135 turds will be laid in the lap of the industry as a farewell gesture from Mr Carmody. His replacement will come up with some genius idea - let’s call it a ‘Tiger Team’ - to spend the industry’s money to roll the turd in glitter, at the industry’s expense.
Hopefully the ‘recruiting drive’ will have gathered up some people chock-full of youthful exuberance, committed to fix everything in a few years. My prediction is that half of them will be gone in a couple of years.
Hopefully the ‘recruiting drive’ will have gathered up some people chock-full of youthful exuberance, committed to fix everything in a few years. My prediction is that half of them will be gone in a couple of years.
I believe CASA were reviewing/re-writing the AIP a few years ago, although they only had one person allocated part time to the task when I was with CASA in Canberra. Obviously not much progress in 5 years.
